• world at war with red dot units

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    650 Views
    A
    Thank you very much
  • Which mods have tech trees like age of tribes?

    8
    1 Votes
    8 Posts
    1k Views
    Teddy SelfT
    Thanks for the info, if anyone is interested in this scenario I have altered just tell me where to upload it. You will play as northern starting on turn 2.
  • Need Relief Tiles

    39
    0 Votes
    39 Posts
    9k Views
    MirkoBrunerM
    @Schulz Nice, I have added to shades of "shores" so far but I still don't know exactly what it would be the best approach. Thanks!
  • Churchill's 1939

    11
    0 Votes
    11 Posts
    2k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @JOSEPH-PRINCE Try this http://www.rogercooper.com/churchills_1939.zip There is no point to sending the xml, as I have not changed the xml. To make this work, you will need to create art for antitank and tank_destroyer. I don't know of any scenario that used those unit types. The Benelux flag is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Benelux.
  • Operation Unthinkable and Operation Dandelion

    31
    1 Votes
    31 Posts
    8k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @Major-Arcana The historical situation was fairly interesting. With many US troops withdrawn from Europe, the British government was estimating the Soviets had a 2.5 to 1 superiority in ground forces, but the Allies were superior in the air. Could the British hold the line until the US redeployed? A good scenario for Europe-only game, especially with more realistic air rules. For a world game, one could add Communist guerillas popping up and the Japanese continuing the Pacific war.
  • new_world_order_lebowski_edition missing image

    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    824 Views
    F
    @LaFayette I could also just leave it white and let Russia have a special one. I don't know how to hue shift.
  • Iron War: Europe - Official Thread

    67
    4
    2 Votes
    67 Posts
    41k Views
    F
    Been playing Europe instead of the whole world. Couple of thoughts. I am playing all of one side against the AI. Seems to favor the axis quite a bit. As the allies it went to turn 15 before i was tipped the scales. As axis, i feel like i am in the winning position on turn 5, just a matter of time. I think part of that is the size of the navies. The rally points from IW could be a good addition to this map. USA had difficulties finding a place to put a new factory. Germany and USA had fairly similar colors. Germany was also similar to one of the Balkan nations, but that isn't as big of a deal, as they are allied. After like 2 turns, iron was not much of a factor for me. I don't know how much you wanted that to be a factor, but the fuel is what really limits things for me. AI seems to use more of its iron though. SS troops seem to need a higher TUV value. They are picked first for casualties.
  • Question about triggers

    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    787 Views
    F
    @Mas-N invert values: true or false. default if missing is false. if true, this attachment's condition will be reversed (does not reverse the effect). line 2922 of POS2. Wouldn't that do what you want? Or am i reading something wrong?
  • Single Player Maps

    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    2k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @AprilForever It is fun to play Australia and to optimize its play. Well-timed attacks and retreats can throw the Japanese off-balance and divert the Japanese enough to give the Allies victory. I general, it is more fun to play one of the Allies with everyone else on AI and try to depend on your AI allies.
  • World War II v5 1942 Second Edition

    43
    0 Votes
    43 Posts
    20k Views
    SchulzS
    I've saw overall negative views for this map campared to revised and anniversary no idea if it because of balance or fun issue. The vanilla one is biased towards Axis. Even inTR set up they still give 6 bid to allies. I think it would be better with Italian presence and reducing armour cost to 5.
  • Air battles question

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    635 Views
    wc_sumptonW
    @ff03k64 In the unitAttachment there is the 'canAirBattle' option. Setting it to 'true' should allow those unit to participate in air battles prior to the normal ground battle. Cheers...
  • 0 Votes
    8 Posts
    1k Views
    T
    @eregister I looked at that save. The USA player doesn't have the buyTank production rule. Looking through the history, it doesn't show a trigger having run after the armour technology was gained. I looked at other turns when technologies were purchased and I don't see any triggers running after the technologies were purchased. I played one round where I used "edit game" to give the armour technology to USA. After the technology activation phase, the history showed the trigger having run. What version are you using? And could you make a save on the turn after you purchase the armour technology?
  • canNotTarget/canNotBeTargetedBy on Attack/Defense

    5
    1 Votes
    5 Posts
    1k Views
    RogerCooperR
    @Trevan That looks like a good generalization of the AA rules.
  • New Scenario: Axis & Allies & Zombies (AAZ)

    5
    5 Votes
    5 Posts
    3k Views
    RogerCooperR
    Here is the fixed version. AAZ.zip
  • CanalAttachment not Working

    canalattachment
    2
    1 Votes
    2 Posts
    602 Views
    wc_sumptonW
    @RogerCooper I did not find a connection between '18 Sea Zone' and '29 Sea Zone' for 'Suez Canal'. Also there is no connection between '20 Sea Zone' and '12 Sea Zone' for 'Panama Canal'. There is a connection between '18 Sea Zone' and '19 Sea Zone' for 'Turkish Straits'. Maybe adding the following connections will help. <connection t1="18 Sea Zone" t2="29 Sea Zone"/> <connection t1="12 Sea Zone" t2="20 Sea Zone"/> Not sure just guessing here. Cheers...
  • No relief tiles

    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    1k Views
    TheDogT
    @ff03k64 Im on Windows 10, Java 11.0.6 and AAA=2.3.21895 I too had to dl it, it works for me, I too have never played it.
  • Is 1941 better year than 1942 for WWII scenarios?

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    1k Views
    RogerCooperR
    In general, 1941 has more options than 1942, while 1940 can have too many options, making it hard to balance the game. On my Wiki here my articles by year (not all are scenarios) 1937 5 1938 0 1939 124 1940 73 1941 204 1942 233 1943 11 1944 21 1945 16
  • 0 Votes
    4 Posts
    748 Views
    TheDogT
    @Trevan Thanks! Im on your factory building v2.3.21895 I will raise an issue on GitHub.
  • Game Crash when air units in battle

    11
    0 Votes
    11 Posts
    2k Views
    LaFayetteL
    Thanks for finding that. I think the fix is for AA to not shoot at air transported units. On the flip side we should be sure they are removed as casualties if the transport is shot down.
  • Need help to convert an old game

    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    3k Views
    SchulzS
    It works now perfectly, unfortunately both Great war and GW1918 lack of png image. How do I can create relief tiles?

Recent Posts

  • Interesting video, and welcome back! I think the changes are interesting.

    Regarding tactics I do think that having 5 levels is a lot. I think that @shorogyth 's system seems reasonable. I'd also pull the plains bonus out of the tactics system (call it "defensive tactics") and have a separate plains attack bonus. That way horses can have a bonus there, and rangers won't automatically be good attacking on plains. I know it's a third number, but I think it'll be less confusing than tactics being mostly defense bonuses but also one attack bonus.

    Also, can you have more than a +-1bonus on some terrains? I feel like most flying units would need more than a -1 bonus on caves, especially because tactics give them bonuses.

    I agree with the relentless issue. I think it's cool for some units to ignore your defensive terrain advantage, but they should be rare and therefore scary. Having basically all orcs be relentless is pretty silly and makes plains better for defense than cities.

    Regarding unit abilities, I don't think rock paper scissors is necessarily bad, especially because not all factions are equally strong in each. If each faction has different strengths and weaknesses, it forces factions to collaborate more, and stops things from snowballing as much if one faction falls.

    Eg Gondor would spam rangers because they have good defense bonuses and would kill the winged nazgul (thereby denying mordor's leadership), so you could send flanking cavalry from Rhun or harad to eliminate them. Elven archers were much stronger than the spearmen, but fell very quickly to wargs, which forced the elves to diversify more. In particular, Isengard had no ranged units, so Rohan's flank cavalry was especially dangerous since it would directly target the fires of orthanc, and so isengard had to spend a lot of effort screening its siege forces.

    I think ranged support feels reasonable. I like all abilities that encourage using a variety of units. Eg the galadhrim archers are one of the most powerful units in the game, but they require you to buy the weaker elven spearmen to unlock their full value.

    I like the change to charge, since before formation made those units a liability because you couldn't make them not charge. Eg the warg riders were essentially useless for angmar because of this and rohan suffered hard.

    I do like the new ambush mechanic since it encourages more diversity in unit selection. I do think it should be allowed in cities though (that was the whole siege of osgilliath), and the fact that only a certain number of units can ambush will balance it. I'm not sure I like scouting as it is though. If scouting eliminates ambush, then you just need 1-2 units with scouting in your army and you're fine. And if those units are otherwise useful (eg rangers) then it makes ambushers useless. Maybe scouting should be like spearwall? Just decreasing the effectiveness of ambush so it's less good but still useful? So maybe barrow wights would have an ambush of 6, then eg warg scouts could have a scouting of 2, rangers 3, and wizards 6x2 or sth?

    I feel like something missing in the game is some notion of hit and run tactics for cavalry. Cavalry is expensive and strong and excels at taking out small groups, but you often can't take advantage of this because if you do it exposes your cavalry to counterattack where they won't make up their PU values. Meanwhile air units can do this which gives angmar and mordor a big advantage. Maybe some cavalry could have an ability wherein they (and only they) can independently retreat after the first round of combat, even if there's a win? This still requires some thought, since if you don't have a win in your first round you have to decide if it's worth leaving your cavalry open to guarantee the win, and cavalry is still worse than flying units since they don't get the whole combat or a noncombat move. But it makes cavalry much more tactically interesting

    Also a general thought, but I think rangers need to be a higher tier of ranged unit. They have excellent tactics, mountaineer, high movement, anti-flying, scouting, ambush, support, and maybe more. And given the lore this makes sense, but also in the lore they aren't common at all - the Dunedain are solitary and dying out. So I think buffing them and treating them more like weak creatures than elite infantry would make more sense. And then you could maybe have some weaker version for gondor representing Faramir's rangers which are just elite infantry

    read more

  • @thehobbesian

    Tha map is here, so can be downloaded manually.
    https://github.com/ClavintheGreat/thehobbesians_1939

    I think it to make it downloadable for all, it needs to change the repository from main to master
    I dont have permission to do this.

    Here is the instructions for a rename.
    https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/configuring-branches-and-merges-in-your-repository/managing-branches-in-your-repository/renaming-a-branch

    read more

  • @thehobbesian

    Yea triplea had a major update recently and the way maps are uploaded has changed. I haven't looked at the new process that closely but if it was able to download before, it should work on the update too.

    I will ping @rogercooper @thedog for you

    Hi! Sorry to bother again. I'm trying to play the mod with a friend but its not showing up for either of us on the latest version of TripleA. Is there anything I can do to get it back up and available?

    read more

  • @djggml
    So here is a working map.yml (remove the .txt to use it.
    map.yml.txt

    map_name: the_pact_of_steel games: - {game_name: Pact of Steel, file_name: pact_of_steel.xml} - {game_name: Pact of Steel 2, file_name: pact_of_steel_2.xml} - {game_name: Pact of Steel 233, file_name: pact_of_steel_233.xml}

    Note it has the version line removed.

    read more